Alataq Posted May 25, 2015 Author Share Posted May 25, 2015 Again making missiles weaker and stuff like that. Come on , stop changing the game just because some one is crying about him getting damaged in a war. IF he is not willing to be burnt then don't go to war. Don't be a hypocrite that thinks along the line, is ok for me to beat down someone with my superior tanks , planes and navy but is not okay for the someone to retaliate by throwing missiles in my direction. IF they cant fire missiles when their army is out then what should they do? Roll over and die while you kept burning his nation? This idea was not suggested because I am upset about taking missiles. It just shows to show you that some people will freak out over an idea. Glad to know who is who. Lets not nerf missiles EVEN MORE than they already are. Above the 1000 score tier, they are nearly worthless and the 3rd best weapon to use. No need to make them completely worthless. Missiles are the one item that a nation can fight back with against overwhelming odds. Every war you see the same people suggesting this depending on which side they support (and is winning). I disagree with this suggestion. With missiles, or nukes for that matter, being disabled if your opponent has blockade + air & ground control then losing nations can't do anything but just sit there and watch their nations melt away. Then I believe you'll see a lot of people giving up and leaving the game. Besides, Iron Domes and the production limit of 1pr day has made missiles a little underwhelming anyway, especially considering that naval and air attacks can cause considerably more damage than your average missile. Agreed. I've lost interest for this idea and I see your point. For the rest of you: Feel free to debate it all you'd like. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ELPINCHAZO Posted May 25, 2015 Share Posted May 25, 2015 You can spy their missiles away so that they can only launch 1 a day at 1 target. If that target has a dome, only 50% of those will hit. eh probability of 50%...which may sounds like semantics but they will be people that don't understand the difference when dealing with a small sample size and start screaming bloody murder that there is a bug. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wayne Posted May 25, 2015 Share Posted May 25, 2015 So you wish to be able to spend 5 days grinding someones infra down at minimal losses to yourself, while your defeated enemy just has to take his licks. Even though he may not of been the aggressor and may have even been jumped by 3 players? Surely if you already have control of the fight, the best way stop his missles is to beige him as soon as possible... 2 Quote ☾☆ Warrior of Dio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vincent Posted May 26, 2015 Share Posted May 26, 2015 @Wayne - 100% agree, if one were to have all 3 superiority then there shouldn't be much problem for him to beige the opponent . Yet he /she didn't do so, for whatever reason best known to he/herself. Yet he got the cheek to come here crying about his opponent is being able to fire missiles at him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MRBOOTY Posted May 27, 2015 Share Posted May 27, 2015 (edited) Let's put this into a scenario, Say America was to be attacked by Russia and there were no nukes. Russia is now surrounding the US and partly invaded. Does the US fire missiles at them or go "Nah bro, We won't do that you have us blockaded" Iron Domes block 90% of missiles in real life. I disagree. The game should be fun. However, missles could be limted by reducing their dmg capabilities by 40%. ^ This is a good idea In the most recent war, I had all three superiorities so my opponent started lobbing missiles at me, while an ally was losing at sea so he attacked him at sea. In the end, even though I blocked 3 of his 4 launched missiles I ended up taking more damage overall. I was effectively punished for being really prepared, and I really could've eaten 7ish missiles had I gotten unlucky. How does that make sense? But as said, maybe supieriority should just decrease damage. It does make sense to have a last option, too. Edited May 27, 2015 by MRBOOTY Quote MR BOOTY IN DA HOUSE http://i.imgur.com/R5WWAB1.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MRBOOTY Posted May 27, 2015 Share Posted May 27, 2015 (edited) Edit: This post was me yelling at someone for admitting to doing something really dumb here. I'm being nice and deleting the post. Edited May 27, 2015 by MRBOOTY Quote MR BOOTY IN DA HOUSE http://i.imgur.com/R5WWAB1.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ayayay Posted May 27, 2015 Share Posted May 27, 2015 Edit: This post was me yelling at someone for admitting to doing something really dumb here. I'm being nice and deleting the post. Now I'm curious Quote Orbis Wars | CSI: UPN | B I G O O F | PW Expert Has Nerve To Tell You How To Run Your Own Goddamn Alliance | Occupy Wall Street | Sheepy Sings TheNG - My favorite part is when Steve suggests DEIC might have done something remotely successful, then gets massively shit on for proposing such a stupid idea. On 1/4/2016 at 6:37 PM, Sheepy said: This was !@#$ing gold. 10/10 possibly my favorite post on these forums yet. Sheepy said: I'm retarded, you win Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.